Nock v. Spring Energy RRH, LLC

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided July 25, 2023·No. 1:23-cv-01042·Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ROBERT NOCK, an individual, on his own No. 23-1042 behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, PROTECTIVE ORDER Plaintiff, v. SPRING ENERGY RRH, LLC d/b/a SPRING POWER & GAS, RRH ENERGY SERVICES, LLC and RICHMOND ROAD HOLDINGS, LLC, Delaware limited liability companies Defendants. JENNIFER H. REARDEN, District Judge: WHEREAS, all of the parties to this action (collectively, the “Parties,” and individually, a “Party”) request that this Court issue a protective order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) to protect the confidentiality of certain non-public and confidential material that will be exchanged pursuant to and during the course of discovery in this case; WHEREAS, the Parties, through counsel, agree to the following terms; WHEREAS, the Parties acknowledge that this Protective Order does not confer blanket protection on all disclosures or responses to discovery, and that the protection it affords only extends to the limited information or items that are entitled, under the applicable legal principles, to confidential treatment; WHEREAS, the Parties further acknowledge that this Protective Order does not create entitlement to file confidential information under seal; and WHEREAS, in light of the foregoing, and based on the representations of the Parties that discovery in this case will involve confidential documents or information, the public disclosure of which would cause harm to the producing person and/or a third party to whom a duty of confidentiality is owed, and to protect against injury caused by dissemination of confidential documents and information, this Court finds good cause to issue an appropriately tailored confidentiality order governing the pretrial phase of this action; IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that any person subject to this Protective Order—including, without limitation, the Parties to this action, their representatives, agents, experts, and

consultants, all third parties providing discovery in this action, and all other interested persons with actual or constructive notice of this Protective Order—shall adhere to the following terms: 1. Any person subject to this Protective Order who receives from any other person subject to this Protective Order any “Discovery Material” (i.e., information of any kind produced or disclosed pursuant to and in the course of discovery in this action, including written discovery responses) that is designated “Confidential” pursuant to the terms of this Protective Order (hereinafter, “Confidential Discovery Material”) shall not disclose such Confidential Discovery Material to anyone else except as expressly permitted hereunder. 2. The person producing any given Discovery Material or any party to this action

may designate Confidential only such portion of such material the public disclosure of which is either restricted by law or would cause harm to the business, commercial, financial, or personal interests of the producing person and/or a third party to whom a duty of confidentiality is owed and that consists of: (a) previously non-disclosed financial information (including, without limitation, profitability reports or estimates, percentage fees, design fees, royalty rates, minimum guarantee payments, sales reports, and sale margins); (b) previously non-disclosed material relating to ownership or control of any non-public company; (c) previously non-disclosed business plans, product development information, or marketing plans; (d) any information of a personal or intimate nature regarding any individual,

specifically including (with respect to any consumer who is not Plaintiff or an employee of the Defendants, and unless otherwise addressed in Rule 9.A of the Court’s Individual Rules and Practices), contact information (including residential address, telephone number, and email address), information about their residential consumption of gas or electricity, and/or financial information or consumer account information with respect to the same; or (e) any other category of information hereinafter given Confidential status by the Court.

3. With respect to the Confidential portion of any Discovery Material—including written responses to discovery demands and/or interrogatories, as well as objections, but excluding deposition transcripts and exhibits—the producing person or that person’s counsel or any party to this action or their counsel may designate such portion Confidential by: (a) stamping or otherwise clearly marking Confidential the protected portion in a manner that will not interfere with legibility or audibility; and (b) producing for future public use another copy of said Discovery Material with the confidential information redacted. Where the producing person produces electronic documents in native format, the producing person shall not alter such electronic documents to designate them as confidential. Instead, the producing person shall provide the designation in a transmittal letter or email included with the production, reasonably identifying (by, e.g., index of file names or by other similarly clear and obvious designation) any portions of the production which are confidential, and/or by including the word “Confidential” in the name of a folder or directory containing the electronic documents so designated. 4. With respect to deposition transcripts, a producing person or that person’s

counsel or any party to this action or their counsel may designate such portion Confidential either by (a) indicating on the record during the deposition that a question calls for Confidential information, in which case the reporter will bind the transcript of the designated testimony (consisting of both question and answer) in a separate volume and mark it as “Confidential Information Governed by Protective Order”; or (b) notifying the reporter and all counsel of record, in writing, within 30 days of the conclusion of a deposition, of the specific pages and lines of the transcript and/or the specific exhibits that are to be designated Confidential, in which case all counsel receiving the transcript will be responsible for marking the copies of the designated transcript or exhibit (as the case may be) in their possession or under their control as

directed by the producing person or that person’s counsel. During the 30-day period following the conclusion of a deposition, the entire deposition transcript will be treated as if it had been designated Confidential. 5. With respect to written responses to requests for production, interrogatories, or requests for admission, a producing party may designate such portion Confidential by (a) placing the designator “[CONFIDENTIAL]” before and after the Confidential portion of the produced response; and (b) producing for future public use another copy of the written discovery responses with the Confidential language redacted. 6. If at any time prior to the trial of this action, a producing person or party realizes that some portion(s) of Discovery Material previously produced by the producing person without limitation should be designated Confidential, then the producing person or party may so designate by so apprising all prior recipients of the Discovery Material in writing, and thereafter such designated portion(s) of the Discovery Material will be deemed to be, and treated as,

Confidential under the terms of this Protective Order. 7. Nothing contained in this Order will be construed as: (a) a waiver by a Party or person of its right to object to any discovery request; (b) a waiver of any privilege or protection; or (c) a ruling regarding the admissibility at trial of any document, testimony, or other evidence. 8.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Nock v. Spring Energy RRH, LLC, (S.D.N.Y. 2023).

Nock v. Spring Energy RRH, LLC (Nock v. Spring Energy RRH, LLC) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga
435 F.3d 110 (Second Circuit, 2006)